does nietzsche's theory of the ubermensch have any philosophical merit?

[gnosis92]

or is it crazy nuttiness?

or mabye both?

some more serious questions:
how is the ubermensch in nietzsche's system of thought supposed to bring meaning to this world, over the untermench?

was it just a literary idea or is it some sort of eugenic biological creature?

[spindozes]

In the Nietzschean world, the ubermensch plays a role for sure, how significant that role is up for judgement. Way I see it is that the Ubermensch is trying to re-invent himself having had a knowledge of this world, its past and possible futures. He wants to experience each day as though if every day was the same he would be filled with joy. In a sense this is speculative philosophy and can be quite tricky. Nietzsche's object is to have the Ubermensch affirm life and avoid the nihilism which Nietzsche saw as a cultural disease found throughout society. He feared that this nihilism would give rise to a very dangerous power situation in which a militaristic culture will be followed blindly. The Ubermensch would show an alternative to this negative view, by promoting a view that affirmed life through cultural and psychological enhancement. It was a project in defining nobility.

[comiezapr]

The superman was a way to avoid nihilism. I dont see any reason to be nihilistic, and i dont see how the super man avoids a nihilistic world view any better than say, a humble shopkeeper. I also dont see what nihilism has to do with morality. So because life is pointless we should just do nothing? Acording to what valid deductive system is this correct (normative statements dont follow from descriptive ones)? What would this particular "should" have to do with morality? I should change my car, but clearly nothing morally interesting follows here, as nothing morally interesting follows from the present example. And in what respects is life pointless? This whole thing is absolutly retarded!

Of course, i dont see any reason to read Nietzsche. What he says is, usually, naive, and when not naive it is uninterestingly incorrect. His philosophical method, if he had any, was to fly in the face of common opinion; he was like an ironically common punk rocker of philosophy.

More specifically, his methedology in morality is absoutly rediculous. The thing to do here is to find moral principles that generalize particular intuitions with respect to specific situations. Its wrong to kill people indescriminantly because if i saw a guy on the street and intentionally flung a knife at him for no reason, it would be wrong. Its hard to see what exactly Nietzsche was doing when he was making a system of morality. Certianly he was not generalizing specific intuitions; his conclusions would have been enough to falsify his entire project.

What he seemed to be doing was just rejecting intuitions (and im sure he had the same intuition based on his actions in his life) to get popular. Or maybe he was trying to say something grand, hidden in his rediculous philosophy, leaving the lesser minds to intepret what he said (or read thier ideas into his words). Or maybe he was saying something mundane with terrible phraseology and conceptualization. Most plausibly, though, he was just a god damn idiot.

[Aske]

or is it crazy nuttiness?

or mabye both?

some more serious questions:
how is the ubermensch in nietzsche's system of thought supposed to bring meaning to this world, over the untermench?

was it just a literary idea or is it some sort of eugenic biological creature?

The overman, I take it, is a symbol for self-betterment, or individual achievement. It has nothing to do with biology, and he never used the term Untermensch. Though it can be contrasted with the last man, the person who is content, meek, and a herd animal, who doesn't go out and seek challenges like the overman. (This is a very rough outline.)

The superman was a way to avoid nihilism. I dont see any reason to be nihilistic, and i dont see how the super man avoids a nihilistic world view any better than say, a humble shopkeeper. I also dont see what nihilism has to do with morality. So because life is pointless we should just do nothing? Acording to what valid deductive system is this correct (normative statements dont follow from descriptive ones)? What would this particular "should" have to do with morality? I should change my car, but clearly nothing morally interesting follows here, as nothing morally interesting follows from the present example. And in what respects is life pointless? This whole thing is absolutly retarded!

He thought that modern morality (and religion) had its root in nihilism. Namely, because it does not value the world it attempts to formulate it according to fictitious moral laws.

Of course, i dont see any reason to read Nietzsche. What he says is, usually, naive, and when not naive it is uninterestingly incorrect. His philosophical method, if he had any, was to fly in the face of common opinion; he was like an ironically common punk rocker of philosophy.

More specifically, his methedology in morality is absoutly rediculous. The thing to do here is to find moral principles that generalize particular intuitions with respect to specific situations. Its wrong to kill people indescriminantly because if i saw a guy on the street and intentionally flung a knife at him for no reason, it would be wrong. Its hard to see what exactly Nietzsche was doing when he was making a system of morality. Certianly he was not generalizing specific intuitions; his conclusions would have been enough to falsify his entire project.

What he seemed to be doing was just rejecting intuitions (and im sure he had the same intuition based on his actions in his life) to get popular. Or maybe he was trying to say something grand, hidden in his rediculous philosophy, leaving the lesser minds to intepret what he said (or read thier ideas into his words). Or maybe he was saying something mundane with terrible phraseology and conceptualization. Most plausibly, though, he was just a god damn idiot.

You cannot read Nietzsche in the same way you would read an analytic philosophy text; you can't just reduce what he is saying to a set of logical arguments. Reading him is a lot like reading poetry.

And yes, he does have many opinions that do not agree with those of the majority, but why is that alone enough to dismiss him? Intuition is one thing--I have an intuition that my belief in that tree over there is true, and that is enough to reject a theory of knowledge that doesn't recognize so--, but one need not always follow it. For instance, our moral intuitions may contradict those of another culture.

[untermensche]

I think the overman is Nietzsche's misconception of evolution. That it is a continually perfecting process in all areas, including human consciousness.

Evolution perfects only in the development of survival traits, not in all possible directions.

But humans are also a product of their cultures, and these can be perfected, or at least improved, by human activity, to create better people.

[Magic Primate]

better according to who?

[untermensche]

better according to who?
These days, societies are nations, and nations are judged by other nations, and if one nation is extremely violent and presumes it has a special place to change the structure of whole regions, then a less violent, less presumptuous nation would be a move towards being better.

[Aske]

I think the overman is Nietzsche's misconception of evolution. That it is a continually perfecting process in all areas, including human consciousness.

Evolution perfects only in the development of survival traits, not in all possible directions.

But humans are also a product of their cultures, and these can be perfected, or at least improved, by human activity, to create better people.

As I said, the overman has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, his conception of the last man (as can be seen in the name) is based on evolutionary thinking: society favors such traits, so the herd animal becomes prevalent, while traits that are noble or "dangerous" are such that they are discouraged by society.

[untermensche]

As I said, the overman has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, his conception of the last man (as can be seen in the name) is based on evolutionary thinking: society favors such traits, so the herd animal becomes prevalent, while traits that are noble or "dangerous" are such that they are discouraged by society. This should cohere with how you describe it.
How do you know Nietzsche did not concieve of the overman as an evolutionary progression of man?

He thought man was a progression from modern apes, as many who do not understand evolution think.

[Aske]

How do you know Nietzsche did not concieve of the overman as an evolutionary progression of man?

He thought man was a progression from modern apes, as many who do not understand evolution think.

I admit that in the passage in question it could be seen this way, especially in the bottom paragraph:

I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?

What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.

Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

But I think that you are taking it too literally. He seems to be speaking metaphorically: to not overcome one's self is comparable to remaining an ape. Walter Kaufmann as well maintains that it has nothing to do with biology.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position at the moment to give a good account of the overman (it's been awhile since I read Zarathustra). I might attempt it later though.

[untermensche]

I admit that in the passage in question it could be seen this way, especially in the bottom paragraph:



But I think that you are taking it too literally. He seems to be speaking metaphorically: to not overcome one's self is comparable to remaining an ape. Walter Kaufmann as well maintains that it has nothing to do with biology.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position at the moment to give a good account of the overman (it's been awhile since I read Zarathustra). I might attempt it later though.
Nietzsche knew of evolution.

He lived after Darwins ideas were known, at least to those like Nietzsche. The most educated.

But my reading is literal, because I do not believe Nietzsche knew evolution well.

[Aske]

Nietzsche knew of evolution.

He lived after Darwins ideas were known, at least to those like Nietzsche. The most educated.

But my reading is literal, because I do not believe Nietzsche knew evolution well.

No one doubts that he knew of Darwin. In fact, he refers to him several times in his other writings. So, because you believe that Nietzsche interpreted Darwin badly, you decide that that passage in question is a bad interpretation of Darwin? I thought that it was passages like that that made you come to the conclusion that he interpreted him badly?

[untermensche]

No one doubts that he knew of Darwin. In fact, he refers to him several times in his other writings. So, because you believe that Nietzsche interpreted Darwin badly, you decide that that passage in question is a bad interpretation of Darwin? I thought that it was passages like that that made you come to the conclusion that he interpreted him badly?
A bad understanding of evolution, which Darwin did not understand in whole, which is not even now understood in whole.

I think the overman is a conceptualized evolutionary step.

A real, possible, thing in Nietzsche's mind.

What do you think it is?

[Zossima]

The overman is absolutely not an evolutionary concept. Any cursory reading of even merely "Zarathustra's Prologue" will reveal that. Nietzsche does not have in mind that we all will evolve into overmen. To become an overman is a psychological achievement, not a biological one.

[untermensche]

The overman is absolutely not an evolutionary concept. Any cursory reading of even merely "Zarathustra's Prologue" will reveal that. Nietzsche does not have in mind that we all will evolve into overmen. To become an overman is a psychological achievement, not a biological one.
Let's do that.
"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock or a painful embarassment. And man shall be just that for the overman; a laughing-stock or a painful embarassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, man is more ape than any ape.
This certainly looks like a biological and not a psychological presentation.

And buried in it another bad evolutionary concept. That organisms actually willed their progress from "worm to man".

[gnosis92]

In the Nietzschean world, the ubermensch plays a role for sure, how significant that role is up for judgement. Way I see it is that the Ubermensch is trying to re-invent himself having had a knowledge of this world, its past and possible futures. He wants to experience each day as though if every day was the same he would be filled with joy. In a sense this is speculative philosophy and can be quite tricky. Nietzsche's object is to have the Ubermensch affirm life and avoid the nihilism which Nietzsche saw as a cultural disease found throughout society. He feared that this nihilism would give rise to a very dangerous power situation in which a militaristic culture will be followed blindly. The Ubermensch would show an alternative to this negative view, by promoting a view that affirmed life through cultural and psychological enhancement. It was a project in defining nobility.


I've read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and I've read how Nietzsche says the "overman" shall be the bridge, and "what is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment? So it will be man to the overman"? (I guess Nietzsche didn't like gorrillas??!!)

He said the overman shall be the meaning of this world, etc.
I am under the impression that with the death of god, all value in this world is denied, but must be created and re-created by overman.

[gnosis92]

Let's do that.

This certainly looks like a biological and not a psychological presentation.

And buried in it another bad evolutionary concept. That organisms actually willed their progress from "worm to man".

It appears to me he had a 19th century concept of evolution as a great chain of being. Since God is dead, then it is up to overman to complete the great chain of being by creating God - by creating overman.

[untermensche]

It appears to me he had a 19th century concept of evolution as a great chain of being. Since God is dead, then it is up to overman to complete the great chain of being by creating God - by creating overman.
What he did not have was any understanding of genetics.

And in that his misunderstandings are understood.

This is the beginning of modern evolutionary science.

Had Nietzsche lived today, I doubt he would still talk about the overman.

He would understand that humans are to an extent trapped in their genetic predispositions, and cannot simply "will" progress towards another thing, an overman.

[Aske]

It appears to me he had a 19th century concept of evolution as a great chain of being. Since God is dead, then it is up to overman to complete the great chain of being by creating God - by creating overman.

Actually, he did not, and this can be seen in his critique of Darwin:

Anti-Darwin.— As for the famous "struggle for existence," so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total aspect of life is not the extremity, not starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering—and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power ... One should not mistake Malthus for nature.— Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence—and, indeed, it occurs—its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin's school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them: namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions. The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority—and they are also more intelligent ... Darwin forgot the spirit (—that is English!); the weak have more spirit ... One must need spirit to acquire spirit,—one loses it when one no longer needs it. Whoever has strength dispenses with the spirit (—"Let it go!" they think in Germany today—"the Reich must still remain to us" ...). It will be noted that by "spirit" I mean care, patience, cunning, simulation [Vorstellung], great self-control, and everything that is mimicry (the latter includes a great deal of so-called virtue).

From The Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man, section 14 (emphasis mine).

I also have already mentioned his take on how different individuals are seen as desirable for society, a how this can be seen in his conception of the last man. I think that the fact he possesses such a view of evolution is enough to dismiss any interpretation of the overman as the result of evolutionary progress.

[untermensche]

Anti-Darwin.— As for the famous "struggle for existence," so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved.
It is still the central part of the Theory of Evolution, that organisms are involved in a struggle for survival, and depending on chance genetic traits have different odds of being successful enough to pass on genes through another organism.

Nietzsche was dead wrong. Like much of his ideas on evolution, like the overman.

[comiezapr]

You cannot read Nietzsche in the same way you would read an analytic philosophy text; you can't just reduce what he is saying to a set of logical arguments. Reading him is a lot like reading poetry.

I read this as a paraphrase of "Nietzche isnt philosophy." If he is read as poetry, then i have to say, its really bad and uninsightful poetry.

You are probably correct about what he thought about morality. This is all the more reason to think of him as an idiot. Almost all (and all of the more fundamental maxims) of moral intuition is cross culturally and cross epoch constant; it doesnt change over time or over spacial distance. This is an imediate refuation to anyone that would say that morality here and now is rooted in so-and-so or is created for so and so purposes; morality is the evolutionarily stable state for emotional responses in humans, which wasnt created for anything and is rooted in evolutionary dynamics.

I stand by my opinion with fuller strength, this guy is worthless.

It appears to me he had a 19th century concept of evolution as a great chain of being. Since God is dead, then it is up to overman to complete the great chain of being by creating God - by creating overman.

This is almost certianly correct. And the same goes for the comments on the purpose of the overman. Of course i dont see why there are the problems that the overman is meant to solve and i dont see why the overman solves them. Why doesnt anyone read "Naming and Necessity" instead of this claptrap?

[Zossima]

Let's do that.

This certainly looks like a biological and not a psychological presentation.

And buried in it another bad evolutionary concept. That organisms actually willed their progress from "worm to man".

You are taking imagery for scientific assertion. The one is in no way equivalent to the other. Read, for instance, the quote provided by Aske from "Twilight." Nietzsche doesn't misunderstand the concept of "struggle for survival" -- he merely disagrees with you that it is the fundamental principle for life. He denies that "strength" is defined by who survives -- if he didn't, the men he revered from the past would be the ones that propagated themselves most successfully (and you can use the word "propagate" in more than just a sexual sense there, if you want to). The men Nietzsche reveres are those who have sought most successfully to maximize their power. What Nietzsche means by power is another issue, but it certainly doesn't mean "most successful in the struggle for survival." The overman is not a product of biological evolution -- Nietzsche would be more likely to assert that an overman could only arise in spite of the general tendencies of biological evolution.

You can take Nietzsche's assertion that we "will" our development in one of two ways: (1) Assume that Nietzsche's talking about biological evolution and merely has a horrible understanding of it, or (2) Assume that Nietzsche knows perfectly well what evolution is and is merely talking about something else (i.e. psychological development, self-overcoming). The latter, in light of the whole corpus of his writings, is much more likely.

[untermensche]

You are taking imagery for scientific assertion.
Perhaps, but I would need more than your assertions.
Nietzsche doesn't misunderstand the concept of "struggle for survival" -- he merely disagrees with you that it is the fundamental principle for life.
And in this he is wrong.

[Zossima]

And in this he is wrong.

That's all well and good and beside the point. The point is that the ubermensch is no evolutionary goal.

[untermensche]

That's all well and good and beside the point. The point is that the ubermensch is no evolutionary goal.
And how do you support that claim?

I've shown passages where it is clear Nietzsche claims it is an evolutionary step.

Just another, like, "from worm to man".

[gnosis92]

No reason to read Nietzsche?

Why do University philosophy departments teach Nietzsche?

The University of Illinois Philosophy Departmetn Chair Richard Schact is a Nietzsche scholar.

The superman was a way to avoid nihilism. I dont see any reason to be nihilistic, and i dont see how the super man avoids a nihilistic world view any better than say, a humble shopkeeper. I also dont see what nihilism has to do with morality. So because life is pointless we should just do nothing? Acording to what valid deductive system is this correct (normative statements dont follow from descriptive ones)? What would this particular "should" have to do with morality? I should change my car, but clearly nothing morally interesting follows here, as nothing morally interesting follows from the present example. And in what respects is life pointless? This whole thing is absolutly retarded!

Of course, i dont see any reason to read Nietzsche. What he says is, usually, naive, and when not naive it is uninterestingly incorrect. His philosophical method, if he had any, was to fly in the face of common opinion; he was like an ironically common punk rocker of philosophy.

More specifically, his methedology in morality is absoutly rediculous. The thing to do here is to find moral principles that generalize particular intuitions with respect to specific situations. Its wrong to kill people indescriminantly because if i saw a guy on the street and intentionally flung a knife at him for no reason, it would be wrong. Its hard to see what exactly Nietzsche was doing when he was making a system of morality. Certianly he was not generalizing specific intuitions; his conclusions would have been enough to falsify his entire project.

What he seemed to be doing was just rejecting intuitions (and im sure he had the same intuition based on his actions in his life) to get popular. Or maybe he was trying to say something grand, hidden in his rediculous philosophy, leaving the lesser minds to intepret what he said (or read thier ideas into his words). Or maybe he was saying something mundane with terrible phraseology and conceptualization. Most plausibly, though, he was just a god damn idiot.

[Aske]

No reason to read Nietzsche?

Why do University philosophy departments teach Nietzsche?

The University of Illinois Philosophy Departmetn Chair Richard Schact is a Nietzsche scholar.

There are plenty of reasons to read Nietzsche. He doesn't like Nietzsche because he disagrees with him and doesn't conform to his opinion of what a philosopher should be. The way in which philosophy is done though in analytic departments is much different than the way Nietzsche approached philosophy. The latter is founded on the belief that everything, not just about empirical science, but including things like metaphysics, morals, and religion (ironically, while analytic philosophy was emerging, these last three were quite frowned upon), can be reduced to a set of propositions. Nietzsche, however, did not try to confine himself to a set of propositions: (this is difficult to explain, but) you have to grasp him when you read him, using your other senses. He emphasized the spirit over dogma.

Though the vast majority of philosophy departments in the U.S. are analytic, and there is today a rift between continental and analytic philosophy (Nietzsche of course being in the former along with various other thinkers who don't submit easily to the analytic method). Nietzsche is of course studied in colleges in the U.S., but analytic philosophy is more prevalent.

[gnosis92]

He emphasized the spirit over dogma.

Sounds like mysticism to me

[Aske]

Sounds like mysticism to me

Well, that was probably bad phrasing on my part (although Nietzsche himself constantly uses the term "spirit" in order to describe great individuals). Mysticism is the attempt to experience "God," or the divine. Nietzsche, however, in all of his doctrines was entirely materialistic.

Art would be a better thing to compare him to. You can't, for instance, try to give a precise analysis of a poem--if you did so, the feeling which belongs to it would be loss. Likewise with Nietzsche, his ideas are connected to the way in which he expressed them.

[comiezapr]

No reason to read Nietzsche?

Why do University philosophy departments teach Nietzsche?

The University of Illinois Philosophy Departmetn Chair Richard Schact is a Nietzsche scholar.

Because theyre rediculous or stupid? I dont know. People doing things doesnt show that those things are worthwhile to do.

Nietzsche is one of those philosophers thats easily acessible and part of the continental tradition thats intresting to alot of "philosophers" that like to deal with that stuff.

Rather than say "hey Nietzsche is read by these guys and so hes worthwhile!" why dont you actually use him to say something correct and worthwhile? Theres no better way to refute my claim than by ... well refuting my claim.

You, of all people, should realize the mistake that you make when you make a comment like this. I assume, from your discussion about Roth, that you like the social insights afforded by philosophy (I assume, erroneously, that there are any). Wouldnt one of them be to question the current social practices in place and not take them at face value?

He doesn't like Nietzsche because he disagrees with him and doesn't conform to his opinion of what a philosopher should be.

I dont like Nietzche because i disagree with him. Thats correct. I disagree with him because he is wrong. I dont know what a philosopher should be, by his lights, but judging by his general philosophical method I would think that whatever a philosopher should be, acording to him, is a useless intellectual dangler. By not agreeing with his conception im keeping myself intellectually astute and philosophically sane. Lets not throw out bogies here by painting a picture of me disagreeing with him ARBITRARILY, as if its just a choice i make at the grocery store. I disagree with him because he's wrong. By the progression of this thread (mostly silence on actual things that this guy said) it seems as though im vindicated.

The latter is founded on the belief that everything, not just about empirical science, but including things like metaphysics, morals, and religion (ironically, while analytic philosophy was emerging, these last three were quite frowned upon), can be reduced to a set of propositions.

I dont even know what you mean by reducing everything to a set of propositions, so i wont comment here. Clarify please. In one sense everything is a set of propositions, propositions are those things that have meaning, and so this claim seems to be a truism. In another sense this claim seems to sort of knockdown analytic philosophy as being contrained somehow. Its only constraint is clarity and precision, and i find these to be virtuous constrains rather than deletorious.

The picture youre painting of Nietzsche is progressivly distancing him from anything that can be called philosophy. So what he says cant be seperated out into particular statements about how something (ANYTHING) is? So you need to treat him like you treat a poem, and avoid making him clear? We need to "feel" his philosophy rather than, for instance, state it? What exactly are you saying that is in any way flattering to this overrated intellectual atrocity?

Lets stop talking in the abstract and actually get some Nietzsche in here and see if his ideas pass muster. I wont start it because I dont have any idea where to start searching for ideas of his that are clearly articulated, let alone insightful.

[Aske]

I dont like Nietzche because i disagree with him. Thats correct. I disagree with him because he is wrong. I dont know what a philosopher should be, by his lights, but judging by his general philosophical method I would think that whatever a philosopher should be, acording to him, is a useless intellectual dangler. By not agreeing with his conception im keeping myself intellectually astute and philosophically sane. Lets not throw out bogies here by painting a picture of me disagreeing with him ARBITRARILY, as if its just a choice i make at the grocery store. I disagree with him because he's wrong. By the progression of this thread (mostly silence on actual things that this guy said) it seems as though im vindicated.

I meant no harm or disrespect to you. I was only stating that you have a conception of philosophy that differs from Nietzsche.

I dont even know what you mean by reducing everything to a set of propositions, so i wont comment here. Clarify please. In one sense everything is a set of propositions, propositions are those things that have meaning, and so this claim seems to be a truism. In another sense this claim seems to sort of knockdown analytic philosophy as being contrained somehow. Its only constraint is clarity and precision, and i find these to be virtuous constrains rather than deletorious.

I am referring mostly to the way in which analytic philosophy is done. When one is discussing a particular view, they will formulate it into a series of arguments that can be expressed without any vagueness. I agree with you that its stress on clarity and precision is a mark of intellectual rigor amd integrity (something Nietzsche himself would have respected).

The picture youre painting of Nietzsche is progressivly distancing him from anything that can be called philosophy. So what he says cant be seperated out into particular statements about how something (ANYTHING) is? So you need to treat him like you treat a poem, and avoid making him clear? We need to "feel" his philosophy rather than, for instance, state it? What exactly are you saying that is in any way flattering to this overrated intellectual atrocity?

Well, I can give a list of his views (and it has been done in this thread), and we could resort to evidence to prove or disprove them. The same thing can be done with any work of literature as well. What I am saying is that Nietzsche was more than this--in many ways he was an artist as much as a philosopher. I think that this passage from Nietzsche expresses what I'm trying to say here:

Moral for psychologists.— Not to go in for backstairs psychology [Colportage-Psychologie]! Never to observe in order to observe! That gives a false perspective [Optik], leads to squinting and something forced and exaggerated. Experience as the wish to experience does not succeed. One must not eye oneself while having an experience; else the eye becomes "an evil eye." A born psychologist guards instinctively against seeing in order to see; the same is true of the born painter. He never works "from nature"; he leaves it to his instinct, to his camera obscura, to sift through and express the "case," "nature," that which is "experienced" ... He is conscious only of what is general, of the conclusion, the result: he does not know arbitrary abstractions from an individual case.— What happens when one proceeds differently? For example, if, in the manner of the Parisian romanciers [novelists], one goes in for backstairs psychology [Colportage-Psychologie] and deals in gossip, wholesale and retail? Then one lies in wait for reality, as it were, and every evening one brings home a handful of curiosities ... But note what finally comes of all this—a heap of splotches, a mosaic at best, but in any case something added together, something restless, a mess of screaming colors. The worst in this respect is accomplished by the Goncourts: they do not put three sentences together without really hurting the eye, the psychologist's eye.— Nature, estimated artistically, is no model. It exaggerates, it distorts, it leaves gaps. Nature is chance. To study "from nature" seems to me to be a bad sign: it betrays submission, weakness, fatalism,—this lying in the dust before petit faits [little facts] is unworthy of a whole artist. To see what is—that is the mark of another kind of spirit, the anti-artistic, the factual. One must know who one is ...

I should also like to say that art actually can be a valid way to inspect the world: it deals with the human aspect. If you confine yourself only to logic and empirical claims, you are depriving yourself of an important aspect of human experience. If you emphasize this aspect, you are not necessarily giving up clarity and precision.

Lets stop talking in the abstract and actually get some Nietzsche in here and see if his ideas pass muster. I wont start it because I dont have any idea where to start searching for ideas of his that are clearly articulated, let alone insightful.

The best thing to do would be to read him yourself. Familiarizing yourself with his readings would be the best way to understand his method (much better than me trying to explain it to you). Have you read anything from him before?